Johnathan Swift described experiencing satire as peering through a glass in which the beholder discovers everyone’s face but their own. It is only palatable to the beholder, he suggested, because they will not be offended if they fail to see themselves in it. I partially disagree with this. Satire is by design, uncomfortable to behold. While it is not offensive for offense’s sake, it unnerves us with its piercing and unrelenting truth, forcing us to confront the aspects of our lives we’d rather ignore.
Satire, done well, is great. Good satire casts a mirror on society, letting us to reflect on our prejudices, misconceptions and the outrageous behaviour of those we hold dear. There’s dual emotions – on one level we are falling off the couch with laughter at the tropes of Sacha Baron-Cohen’s Borat. On another level, we wince and cringe at the candid Texan agreeing with Borat’s suggestion that gay people, or “fairies”, should be taken away and killed. While satire makes us laugh, its message is intended to be taken seriously.
Humour is always a good way to extinguish hatred. Making a mockery of the oppressor undermines their credibility and eviscerates their ability to be taken seriously. It also prevents the victim stooping to the lows of the aggressor and engaging in an enraged debate in which everyone loses their moral high ground. You might be wondering why I’m explaining satire to you – I’ll return to that later.
I particularly enjoyed the recent antics of Dundalk’s TPM, who organised a counter-protest to a right wing demonstration in the town. The spectacle saw TPM campaigning to ‘bring back dial-up internet’ in a nod to the archaic, out of touch wishes of the protestors.
That’s when satire is done well. It undermines the argument of the aggressor, so that every one of their points seems laughable.
Parody is a vehicle for satire, however, with much parody it is unclear what is being satirised. Little Britain is worth examining. There are some excellent parodies in the show. Daffyd Thomas, the only gay in the village, is a flamboyant, camp character from rural Wales. His sexuality and theatre is not the joke, though. Despite Thomas parading around in full leather, touting his gayness at every opportunity, he is repulsed by the idea of setting his hands on another man. Thomas himself is homophobic and is only gay to the point at which he has to practice his homosexuality. There’s a clear gag.
With the character of Vicky Pollard, on the other hand, it’s unclear as to what we’re meant to be laughing at. Vicky is a fifteen year-old single mother of 12 who is a hopeless parent. She is parodied for her criminal record (she has appeared on Crimewatch 27 times), her vulgarity and her inability to give a straight answer on anything she is asked. The caricature of Vicky looks preposterous, but it is loosely based on reality. If Pollard’s character was not somewhat tangible, there would be no parody.
What exactly is the joke here? Vicky’s character is a cruel parody of a working class 'chav' single mother from a disadvantaged background. Instead of turning the mirror of satire onto ourselves, we are laughing at the plight of the vulnerable. It’s the same patronising voyerism that gives us the likes of the Jeremy Kyle Show. Unlike Daffyd, Vicky’s life is the joke. There is nothing more to the skit.
Matt Lucas, one of the creators of Little Britain, used blackface for one of the characters in the show. Two characters in his subsequent mockumentary Come Fly With Me also use blackface. Using blackface is wrong. It perpetuates the institutionalised racism which society is trying to dismantle. Matt Lucas and David Walliams should have known better not to use it. They have since rightly apologised.
Lucas and Walliams might say that Little Britain puts forward a cross section of society which is scarcely seen in the mainstream media. It features the working class and minorities such as those with disabilities. However, these characteristics are inevitably the butt of the joke in the show. Perhaps, as Swift may suggest, we don’t recognise our own depravity in laughing at these vulnerable characters. Dress it up any way you want, but our smugness and laughter isn't going to improve the lives of anyone in a situation similar to Vicky's.
Satire is threatened by the prevailing trepid environment in which publishers abandon their principles and seasoned judgment in favour of the vague yardstick of ‘will this offend someone?’. This is a symptom of the outrage culture which has festered on the volatile petri dish of public opinion: Twitter. Unfortunately, this haphazard approach by broadcasters leads to inconsistent decision making which is more about perceptions rather than integrity and principles. UKTV announced that it was removing the 'Don’t Mention the War' episode of Fawlty Towers and then changed its mind. The use of the N-word in that episode was utterly inappropriate and ought to have been edited-out. This would have been a more sensible and self-aware move than removing the episode entirely, given the satirical value of the remainder of the episode. In fact, this edit had been done by a number of broadcasters before. Ironically, the BBC had commissioned a new sketch of Little Britain for Comic Relief in April, but by June it had changed its mind about the tenor of the programme, removing it from iPlayer. What does this say?
They say dissecting humour is like dissecting a frog – both are killed in the process. Nonetheless satire is something which should be probed for its wider point. If satire is to achieve anything it must be didactic. With much of Little Britain it was very unclear how this was the case. Satire is no excuse to be racist. I’d hate to see knee-jerk reactions from publishers have a chilling effect on satire.
Comments
Post a Comment